Sometimes thoughtful, but at other times just plain malicious. Yes, Stewart has been leaning a bit more to the left the past few months, but that doesn't mean he's not funny. And while much of the time the humour is aimed at Pres. Bush and the administration, that's because a lot of what comes out of there is just damn funny. This is not to say that Bush is a joke or anything like that, but simply that sometimes, when you look at what he (and others) say or do, you just have to follow Stewart and smack your head and say, "What the f***!!" and laugh. That's the beauty of Stewart and the "Daily Show". It reminds us that most of the time the world is absurd, and you just have to laugh at it. That's why this article is kind of ironic next to the Warren Bell article. I think that Mr. Stein needs to adjust his Seventh Sense a little, and look at Stewart through less ideological eyes himself. I'm a conservative (sorta) and a "Daily Show" fan, and Jon Stewart makes me laugh every time I watch.
I think the problem with the article is illustrated in the section on Stewart's "Crossfire" experience. Stein states that Stewart was in "liberal high dudgeon" when he took on the hosts. Why was his attack on "Crossfire" and its kind a "liberal" attack? Aren't there just as many conservatives who feel that the "head-to-head" pundit shows are bad as there are liberals? Or are conservatives in favour of "Crossfire" and liberals against it. Basically, Stein turned Stewart's criticism of an often ugly form of television into an ideological attack, one that just wan't there. Maybe if he would have toned down some of his ideology in the article, it would have been more thoughtful.
Fair enough--except for the "past couple of months" comment. Are you kidding me? Stewart has been this way since Bush became president. And he is openly liberal, and his show is far more critical of conservatives than liberals. That said, I suspect if Al Gore or John Kerry, the Daily Show would have a lot of fun at their expense, too.
Personally, I don't think Jon Stewart or the Daily Show is funny enough to watch regularly. I used to really like Stewart, but, for example, I think he made an ass of himself on Crossfire, and not because I was cheering for Tucker Carlson or anything. As Stein made clear, Stewart's show deals in cynicism and the mocking of even the slightest indication that Americans can be religious or love their country. For Stewart be that way, and then pretend that comedy is not effective social commentary, and then yell at other people for debasing the political debate in this country is a farce.
I don't care if Stewart leans to the left. I am a semi-regular Daily Show viewer. I TiVo it. The funny thing about that show is that it only has about ten minutes of actual content.
As for Stewart, I do not think he deserves to be taken so seriously-- by anyone really. I agree with the second paragraphs of both articles, if that is possible.
3 comments:
Sometimes thoughtful, but at other times just plain malicious. Yes, Stewart has been leaning a bit more to the left the past few months, but that doesn't mean he's not funny. And while much of the time the humour is aimed at Pres. Bush and the administration, that's because a lot of what comes out of there is just damn funny. This is not to say that Bush is a joke or anything like that, but simply that sometimes, when you look at what he (and others) say or do, you just have to follow Stewart and smack your head and say, "What the f***!!" and laugh. That's the beauty of Stewart and the "Daily Show". It reminds us that most of the time the world is absurd, and you just have to laugh at it. That's why this article is kind of ironic next to the Warren Bell article. I think that Mr. Stein needs to adjust his Seventh Sense a little, and look at Stewart through less ideological eyes himself. I'm a conservative (sorta) and a "Daily Show" fan, and Jon Stewart makes me laugh every time I watch.
I think the problem with the article is illustrated in the section on Stewart's "Crossfire" experience. Stein states that Stewart was in "liberal high dudgeon" when he took on the hosts. Why was his attack on "Crossfire" and its kind a "liberal" attack? Aren't there just as many conservatives who feel that the "head-to-head" pundit shows are bad as there are liberals? Or are conservatives in favour of "Crossfire" and liberals against it. Basically, Stein turned Stewart's criticism of an often ugly form of television into an ideological attack, one that just wan't there. Maybe if he would have toned down some of his ideology in the article, it would have been more thoughtful.
Fair enough--except for the "past couple of months" comment. Are you kidding me? Stewart has been this way since Bush became president. And he is openly liberal, and his show is far more critical of conservatives than liberals. That said, I suspect if Al Gore or John Kerry, the Daily Show would have a lot of fun at their expense, too.
Personally, I don't think Jon Stewart or the Daily Show is funny enough to watch regularly. I used to really like Stewart, but, for example, I think he made an ass of himself on Crossfire, and not because I was cheering for Tucker Carlson or anything. As Stein made clear, Stewart's show deals in cynicism and the mocking of even the slightest indication that Americans can be religious or love their country. For Stewart be that way, and then pretend that comedy is not effective social commentary, and then yell at other people for debasing the political debate in this country is a farce.
I don't care if Stewart leans to the left. I am a semi-regular Daily Show viewer. I TiVo it. The funny thing about that show is that it only has about ten minutes of actual content.
As for Stewart, I do not think he deserves to be taken so seriously-- by anyone really. I agree with the second paragraphs of both articles, if that is possible.
Post a Comment